Hi Chris,
Thank you very much for this. I understand now.
If we'd take you red text as an example (which is your example, but it could exist from my "pen"), try to think of this :
If I would write something like that (and I can, I do), this would clearly indicate my best guesses on the subject concerned. This will imply that I don't know any better at this moment, while I *do* know the variables. Now, read "variables" as the technical knowledge of how wrong things are, and we know how all is just an approximation of something which is ultimately good - but can't be achieved.
This also means it will be subjective, and by putting question marks with it (like your red text) you're all invited to overrule my judgement, or agree for that matter.
The "fake freshness", for example, is about my own long listening to that while not rejecting it, while today all is less fresh and I *also* don't reject it. This 100% sure means that either of the two - or both - are wrong. And now I need help (the question mark).
Only if I *state* something, I am 100% convinced of my being right, but this rarely happens. At least on this forum it doesn't, because
a. I am not challenged for the obvious (in here that is !!);
b. I am not that commercial.
But read posts from me on other forums, and it happens all the time. It could be about software (being bit perfect all the time) being able to change the sound (quality). Now, since when would I need to justify that in here ? never, and there's logic in it.
From all logically follows that whatever I put forward here with such more vague own findings that
1. I think they will be subjective in the fist place;
2. I am open to let "you" decide what's the best;
3. I in fact explicitly claim not to know the answer myself (yet). Although that's implicit without this outlay.
All doesn't mean that maybe all of you fine people are very interested in stuff which is implied set and over and done with (from the start) - and which thus is taken for granted hence is not questioned ... and *thus* is not dealt with. Or not anymore, because somewhere long ago and deep down it was, so why would I dig that up by my own initiative ... if not being commercial in the first place. And worse, you won't even be able to find whatever it is you are looking for, because such things (which happens rarely the past years anyway) are almost always off topic within some other topic, someone asking a question. Well, look at this one here ...
So, I am not shouting all that much about "being the best" etc. etc. (compare what a few others tried the past couple of months, up to shouting the other way around (like program X(X) s*cks all over to proove their so called right)), and from that follows that there's just nothing or few there. A good example of this is the not being commercial about the NOS1, where actually not even a single photo of the thing has been put up in here, but in another forum this just happened because, well, it was explicitly asked for. In the and, by the grace of God, I picked one of those photos and put it up here, just because I thought it was a nice photo (
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1560.msg15812#msg15812). Very much related is my ever talking about Arc Prediction not ringing, and again you good people just never question it, thus don't ask for proof (or the sibject is beyond you, but who cares if it only sounds good). But -and so- the point is, you don't need the explanations because you listen. On another forum this doesn't happen, and so things are doubted in the first place. And so it happens that I can spend hours and hours on this subject alone just because someone asked ("proove it !"), and sadly it will stay like that and I won't even mention the subject in here or put a link to it. But it would be the MOST interesting for all of you, never mind you didn't question it or asked.
To make this already too long offopic post longer than it already is, I guess it is easy for those "X" guys to shout I don't know the heck what I am doing (especially at other forums), obviously because of the whole subject we're just talking about. But I know very well what I am doing and I guess I work from theories only. Those theories just are good, and the more "we" (!) learn, the better those theories can get. However, where do I write about these theories from some self-advertising fashion ? well, at least not in here. This is all going as far as using the theories already for so long, that they stack and stack, and even are taken for granted by myself. The ringing again is a good example, ever knowing that the impulse response of the software + DAC (especially the NOS1 because it is filterless) would show that. But did I ever show it to myself ? no. Why would I. I know it doesn't ring (plus no commercial interest to show it to you). And so it can happen that someone asks eventually, finding myself in the situtation of "how to actually show that". Thus, this is a strange situation where we listen to theories, can hear they are right, but the proof (even to myself !) actually only gets there once at last someone asks. These things happen quite often, and while exactly nobody is able to come up with any counterweight (your theory is wrong here), I can always proove my right when I sit down for it.
Ok, below you see two pictures, not in order to put up an advertisement afterall, but to show you what it can be about when I put up these very pictures elsewhere - the first one showing Arc Prediction filtering and the second one Anti Image filtering. Both are taken from the analogue out of the Phasure NOS1. So what should you use ? ... well, maybe wrong. It needs 50 or so posts more with the length of this one to work that out really and 50 more pictures to support it (which really happend). The most interesting and even the most important for good music reproduction, and where I indeed "state" things. And the funny thing is, this all starts with having a Phasure NOS1 DAC, because without that the first picture would never be able to come forward and proof plainly couldn't be there. So who knows what ?
And what actually was the NOS1 created for ...
Sorry for a stupidly long "explanation" which is relevant partly only. But I guess I am feeling sorry about so many things written elsewhere, while it hardly happens in here *and* that many may like those stories and explanations to be in here. I had rather have them in here myself ...
